Zooms certainly require more brain power since U have one additional degree of freedom to play with.

Cheers,Bernard

Not really - they just give you more options.

Often, your shooting location is dictated by the topography - for compositional or access reasons, there is only one spot you can shoot from to get the composition you want (yes, you can shoot a mountain from many different directions, but each direction and each foreground gives you a completely different photo, and each spot can be many days' hike apart). This leaves you with only a few specific focal lengths that will give you a desirable composition at each location (often one wider shot, as well as one or more close-ups), and a zoom is far more likely to have these specific focal lengths covered than a prime.

The good thing is, when shooting landscapes, what usually matters is sharpness at f/5.6-f/11, not wide-open sharpness, so there is little penalty to using one.

Zooms certainly require more brain power since U have one additional degree of freedom to play with.

Cheers,Bernard

I like to think of zooms as a long list of primes and I try to use them that way

With a zoom I have the choice of not only composition but perspective too (assuming I can change position without falling off a bridge or cliff) whereas if I only have a prime once I've chosen my framing I'm stuck with the perspective unless I change lenses or change position and crop like crazy. That has to be a big advantage for the zoom as long as the quality is ok and the aperture acceptable.

Having said all that I very rarely use zooms but that's just me and mainly because I like the combination of a compact lens and being able to shoot at wider apertures. If there was a 24/28-70mm f1.8 that was the size of a 50mm f1.2 I'd probably buy it, live with the aperture and keep a couple of primes just for the particular look they give.

I am not familiar with all new Nikkors; But when it comes to deep colour i have to think of the 58mm F1.4.The combination with the d850 will be even more extreme.I did not buy the lens for i was looking for a lens with better sharpness, but the coatings of that lens are very nice.

And especially the colordepth seems very good. So exactly what Bernard noticed using the camera.High iso seems a bit less than the d810. That is despite Nikons claim it would be better.

I was beginning to wonder why DXOMark was taking so long to test the D850. It's now tested and the results are out. In what way do you think the high ISO of the D850 is less than the D810? In terms of Dynamic Range the D850 is significantly better all the way up from, and including, ISO 200.

However, there is some difference in the actual sensitivity of the ISO measurements. Only at the nominal ISO 200 do both cameras have the same ISO sensitivity. Above ISO 200 the D850 becomes slightly less sensitive, therefore, the 'almost one stop DR advantage at ISO 800 and ISO 1600', for example, becomes effectively about 0.75 EV advantage, using the same shutter speed with the same lens. Nevertheless, whilst the DR advantage of the D850 is reduced slightly due to differing ISO sensitivities, the highlight recovery advantage is increased by the same degree, when using the same exposure.

I doubt it. Unless the prospective specs of the A7r3/A9r are way off, Sony would have to introduce another line between the high-speed, low-resolution A9 and the low-speed, high-resolution A7r bodies to compete.

A 70MP, 5fps-or-slower camera isn't going to touch the D850, even with the A9 AF system. All it would do is peel away some of the studio/landscape users - it wouldn't have the same general, multipurpose appeal of the D850.

A 60MP, 6-7fps A7r3/A9r would do better, and may be Sony's best option if it doesn't plan on producing something between the low-resolution/high-speed and high-resolution/low-speed models.

A 50MP, 8-10fps body would provide a true competitor to the D850 (provided Sony keeps expanding its lens lineup - both Canon and Nikon will have to do the same when they launch their mirrorless bodies, although I'd imagine Nikon would be quick to bring out a mirrorless version of its spectacular 70-200 f/2.. But it's also a fairly unlikely resolution for the A7r3/A9r - almost certainly, it'll be something higher-resolution and slower.

Comparing sensor quality, is best done not on a DxO 'print' downsampled size but on DxO 'screen' original size. Of course, the additional pixels of a sensor with smaller pitch photosites will positively affect output quality (at smaller output sizes), but then so does postprocessing. The larger the output size that one needs to produce, or the more cropping is required, the more the DxO 'screen' scores matter, also for output.

Anyway, the differences are not that large. The D850 seems to be a very fine camera, judging from the specifications alone.

I think the right comparison is 'Print'. It's actually not a downsampling but a statistical SNR correction, and is the closest performance indicator to what the photographer will find when using the compared cameras in the same application.

I agree for printed or downsampled output at a given output size, but it doesn't help when comparing sensor performance on its own. When we want to see if the sensels are producing a better quality, then we should be comparing the sensels, not the output (which will be different anyway, depending on Raw conversion quality, postprocessing, and output size). That's all I'm saying.

I agree for printed or downsampled output at a given output size, but it doesn't help when comparing sensor performance on its own. When we want to see if the sensels are producing a better quality, then we should be comparing the sensels, not the output (which will be different anyway, depending on Raw conversion quality, postprocessing, and output size). That's all I'm saying.

Cheers,Bart

Bart,In practice, I never view the sensor itself, only the output of the sensor. All images I view or print are at a given size, and images I compare for technical quality are always viewed at the same size.

However, comparing the noise characteristics of the D810 and D850 at the pixel level, shows that the D850 still has a significant DR advantage at high ISOs, up to 0.75 EV better than the D810, discounting the slight differences in ISO sensitivity.

Because the D810 pixel is slightly larger, its SNR at 18% is very marginally better, but to an insignificant degree, ranging from 0.1dB to a maximum of 1dB better.

None of the DXOMark graphs show any significant difference between the two cameras at the pixel level, except for DR at high ISOs.